Skip to content

Criminal justice system>justice

This is, spectacular, to say the least.

In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska.  He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars.  Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket.  Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 decisionby Chief Justice Roberts that Osburne is out of luck.  Although Roberts conceded that “[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty,” he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit.  Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks “unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.”

What the fuck?  The state has possession of the evidence.  The perpetrator will pay for the testing.  But the conservatives on the SCOTUS have a large enough block to prevent the pursuit of a “near certain” truth.

What is the point of having a system of criminal justice if the system is more important than the justice?

I would hope this sort of crap would have the libertarians howling with outrage.

  • houlios
    I've read that about Roberts also. And also, I had the same reaction to him as you did during the confirmation hearings, and that sorta made me forget about how ecstatic talkradio was over the nomination.

    Anyway, regarding your last point about the morass, I guess it would depend on how much DNA evidence states are holding and refusing to test. And I know for a fact that some states do actually retroactively test DNA after trials and people have been exonerated. Its just that in this case, Alaska doesn't want to, and apparently people don't have a right to pay for the test themselves.
  • This has been bothering me since yesterday. For reasons I don't really understand, my friend Pam follows the Supreme Court closely, and at Wiscon she said that every John Roberts judgment favored big business over the little guy, whoever "big business" and "the little guy" happened to be. Which was disappointing to hear, because I actually listened to a bunch of the JR confirmation hearings (it was when I first got to LA) and thought that, yeah, maybe he's conservative, but he seems really smart and really serious about justice and integrity and whatnot. And it's tough to think that justice and integrity only exist on the side of big business.

    So when I read this post I got all pissed off again, worse than before. I can't even imagine the bitter frenzy I'd be in if I went to jail for something I didn't do - if I ever got out of jail I'd be a serial killer for sure. There aren't even words to describe that rage. But then I started wondering what would happen if the judgment had gone the other way. Would every single person in prison be clamoring about some DNA evidence that would exonerate him? Would it instantly turn the entire legal system into an impossible morass?

    I don't know dick about the law, but it seems eminently possible. Which makes me wonder what I would do, were I in JR's shoes, trying to feel out some line between "justice" and "the system." If this is indeed a reasonable characterization, then I don't envy any of those SCOTUS people one bit.
blog comments powered by Disqus